121–130 of 303 posts
Its funny to watch "progressive" mega corporations like Starbucks, Apple, Amazon + more skirt around unions. Essentially they use PR to say we are all for these corporate safe progressive topics... but any topics of worker rights, unions.. nope.
I want to know about closing stores in apparent retaliation against unionizing. This has been happening lately in Boston, with the Cambridge Milk Bar location and the Boylston Starbucks location. It seems like that's the new corporate tactic to try to discourage unionizing. Of course, if every store unionized, then they'd be forced to concede at some point that they still need to keep stores open in order to make mon…
0 - https://www.businessinsider.com/wal-mart-and-jade-helm-consp...
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade_Helm_15_conspiracy_theori...
2 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2000/03/04/w...
3 - https://www.ufcw.org/press-releases/wal-mart-ordered-to-reco...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, no one should cross a picket line.
It sounds nice in practice but there are desperate people out there. A strike provides those people with opportunities. Prisoner's dillema keeps them from sacrificing themselves for a union that sees them as the out-group.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Employees can’t 1/35,000th quit the way Starbucks can close 1/35,000th of its locations. As such closing a few locations is absolutely trivial for Starbucks if it serves some larger purpose.
maybe the union can open a coffee shop then! and hire employees and give them union protection. what a concept.
(Unionize all the stores in an area, and if Starbucks shuts them all down, just open a new coffee shop)
Its funny to watch "progressive" mega corporations like Starbucks, Apple, Amazon + more skirt around unions. Essentially they use PR to say we are all for these corporate safe progressive topics... but any topics of worker rights, unions.. nope.
There's no such thing as a progressive company. They do it for marketing reasons, only after a movement made up of many people taking risks "normalised" a particular form of social progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case. At the minimum there should be a $Duration long waiting period.
> I think this is a clear cut case of retaliation and the SCOTUS is wrong in this case. Where do you draw the line between "retaliation" and "refusing a bad deal"? If spotify wants to hike its monthly price by $10 and I cancel, is that "retaliating" or just me not liking the new deal?
An individual contract might not be financially viable for a given Starbucks location, but nobody is arguing that they will be forced to sign such a contract.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no such thing as a progressive company. They do it for marketing reasons, only after a movement made up of many people taking risks "normalised" a particular form of social progress.
If corporations are people, every one is a psychopath willing to lie and cheat to get what they want.
As a side note, I find it just incredible that the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, actually campaigned for the president under the democratic party. And Hillary Clinton was going to make him labor secretary . When even the left leaning party is that right wing, something has gone terribly wrong.
Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky. If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively…
Don't sign a contract that's unreasonable and makes your business unprofitable. That's what the company is supposed to do.
Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky. If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively…
What a strange hypothetical! That's certainly never happened, and given the current power dynamic, incredibly unlikely to happen today.
Whatever regulations there are to protect workers were created because of unions, not instead of them. If employers had been given the choice, there wouldn't be unions or regulations.